One of the things I have found about this class in particular, and philosophy in general, is that it is usually best to neither ignore, nor immediately follow, one's 'gut feelings' on any given issue. While feelings are sometimes indicative of real, genuine reasons to do or not do something, all too often they are simply products of one's parents' beliefs, generally accepted (yet possibly erroneous) societal pressures, or instinctual leanings which may no longer apply now that humanity is not in a strict live-or-die sort of situation.
When people hear someone state a view which they immediately find shocking or repulsive, they frequently oppose the view without really analysing why they oppose it. They may raise a few weak objections which they can easily quash, but they do not go deeper into the issue - they only go as far as they can without actually changing their view. They avoid any real evidence that opposes their view.
This is obviously a problem for someone whose goal is the pursuit of truth. Going into a situation with not only a preconceived view, but a view that one is unwilling to change cannot produce any new or important results. If one has a gut feeling that abortion, for example, is wrong, one may not remember to analyse the feeling for that most important feature, why?, and that may be a grave mistake. If one's feeling is based off of the assumptions that murder is wrong and abortion is murder, then analysing the issue may produce a different conclusion altogether, such as that murder is wrong but abortion is not murder because the fetus, for a time at least, does not qualify as a sentient being.
No comments:
Post a Comment